Standing Committee D

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Water Bill [Lords]

Elliot Morley: I beg to move,
 That— 
(1) during proceedings on the Water Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall meet when the House is sitting on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 8.55 a.m. and 2.30 p.m., except that on Tuesday 14th October it shall meet only at 4.30 p.m.; 
 (2) 11 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee; 
 (3) the proceedings to be taken at the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown; 
 (4) the proceedings which under paragraph (3) are to be taken on any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table; 
 (5) paragraph (3) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided under paragraph (3) if previous proceedings have already been concluded.
  TABLE   Sitting ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings 16th September (8.55 a.m.)Clauses 1 to 32; Clauses 34 to 36; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33). 16th September (2.30 p.m.)Clauses 1 to 32; Clauses 34 to 36; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33).  18th September (8.55 a.m.)Clauses 1 to 32: Clauses 34 to 36; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33). 18th September (2.30 p.m.)Clauses 1 to 32; Clauses 34 to 36; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33).5.00 p.m. 14th October (4.30 p.m.)Clause 33; Clause 37, Schedule 1; Clause 38, Schedule 2; Clause 39, Schedule 3; Clauses 40 to 58; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33, and to Part 2 (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the licensing of water suppliers).  16th October (8.55 a.m.)Clause 33; Clause 37, Schedule 1; Clause 38; Schedule 2; Clause 39, Schedule 3; Clauses 40 to 58; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 33, and Part 2 (except new Clauses and New Schedules relating to the licensing of water suppliers).11.25 a.m. 16th October (2.30 p.m.)Clause 59, Schedules 4 and 8; Clause 60; Clauses 62 to 87, Schedules 5 and 6; Clauses 88 to 102, Schedules 7 and 9; Clauses 103 to 106; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation).   21st October (8.55 a.m.)Clause 59, Schedules 4 and 8; Clause 60; Clauses 62 to 87, Schedules 5 and 6; Clauses 88 to 102, Schedules 7 and 9; Clauses 103 to 106; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules (except new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation). 11.25 a.m. 21st October (2.30 p.m.)Clause 61; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation; remaining proceedings on the Bill. 23rd October (8.55 a.m.)Clause 61; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation; remaining proceedings on the Bill. 23rd October (2.30 p.m.)Clause 61; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation; remaining proceedings on the Bill.5.00 p.m.'' 
 TABLE 

  May I first say how pleased I am that you are in the Chair, Mr. O'Brien? I look forward to your firm guidance of the Committee. I also welcome the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). I understand that it is his first experience of steering a Bill through the House for the Opposition and look forward to constructive and meaningful debate.  I also welcome my colleagues on the Committee. I am pleased to be joined by such a bunch of battle-hardened veterans, with whom I have shared Committees on several occasions. I am pleased to have their support for what is an important measure for sustainability. I welcome them and thank them for serving.  I think that hon. Members would prefer to get into the detail of the Bill rather than talking about the formal proceedings. As we discussed last night in the Programming Sub-Committee, we have tried to ensure adequate discussion on the main points of the Bill. Members will rightly want to scrutinise aspects of the Bill in detail. There are important issues of principle on the subject of fluoridation, on which there are strongly held views on both sides of the argument, and extra time has been allocated for proper discussion of that.  The programme motion is fair and offers adequate time for what I hope will be an interesting discussion on issues of considerable importance. The measures are important to ensure proper sustainable management of a resource that we often take for granted but would be foolish to continue so doing. It is an important resource that must be managed effectively, and the Bill gives us the powers to do that.  Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): I echo the Minister's kind words about you, Mr. O'Brien, and welcome you to the Chair. We all look forward to serving under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister for his kind words about me and agree with him that the purpose of this and future Committee sittings is to be constructive and meaningful. Those two ideas were foremost in my mind when I drafted some of the amendments that we will debate later.  I also note that we have 11 sittings. That is helpful because there are a lot of important issues to cover. Although it is by and large a well-meaning Bill, there are one or two lost opportunities. I look forward to members of the Committee filling some of those small but important gaps. I also welcome the extra sitting to  discuss fluoride. It became clear on Second Reading that hon. Members feel very strongly about that. I am sad that the debate will not be led by the Minister before us today, but by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). The Minister is right to describe water as an important resource. It is particularly unfortunate that I am sitting right in the sun on a day when we shall discuss rainfall, flooding and saving water. I look forward to an important and meaningful debate.  Norman Baker (Lewes): On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and myself, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. I have served under you before and I look forward to your guidance as we progress through the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have no problem with the programme motion. Indeed, we are grateful to the Government for providing the extra sitting to deal with fluoride. We think that that is sensible. The fact that the Under-Secretary will be taking that sitting for the Government again demonstrates that it belongs in a different Bill. We will nevertheless deal with it as best we can. I notice that we have a good deal of harmony as we start the Bill. I will be interested to see how long it will last. I look forward to more than just silent support for the Minister from Labour Back Benchers: I hope that his battle-hardened colleagues will join in the debate. Too often that does not happen. Question put and agreed to.  The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there are money and ways and means resolutions in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolutions are available on the Table in the middle of the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendment that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.Clause 1 Duty to conserve water resources  Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, after 'implement', insert 'effective'.  The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 1, in  clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'use', insert 'clean'.  Clause stand part.  Government new clause 16—Duty to encourage water conservation.  Norman Baker: Perhaps we can maintain some harmony, because there seems to be general agreement that we should include the duty to conserve water resources in the Bill. It is simply a question of how we achieve it. The current formulation does not lend itself to support from the Government. They have tabled new clause 16 for the reasons that the Minister set out in a letter, which I imagine he sent to all members of the Committee— Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): No.  Mr. Morley: To Opposition spokespeople. Norman Baker: I see. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, as he has not received the letter, I shall read the relevant paragraph: ''Clause 1 was added to the Bill by an amendment in the Lords. While the intention of the amendment is sound, as drafted it presents a number of significant concerns. The duty is very wide so there is a danger that it might have unforeseen and undesirable implications. In particular, it has been suggested that it can cut across the statutory responsibilities of regulators. The Government amendment retains the principle of the clause, whilst addressing these concerns. This will place a duty on the Secretary of State to take steps to encourage the conservation of water and report to Parliament every 3 years on the action taken.''  I am not against the Government's move in principle, because the intention is to strengthen the duty to conserve water resources. However, I note that new clause 16 includes that dreaded phrase ''where appropriate''. That seems to be the opposite of the wide duty that the Minister complains about, and can be a narrow duty if he or his officials choose to interpret it in that way. When does he believe that it would be appropriate to  ''take steps to encourage the conservation of water''  as the new clause says? 
 May I first say how pleased I am that you are in the Chair, Mr. O'Brien? I look forward to your firm guidance of the Committee. I also welcome the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). I understand that it is his first experience of steering a Bill through the House for the Opposition and look forward to constructive and meaningful debate. 
 I also welcome my colleagues on the Committee. I am pleased to be joined by such a bunch of battle-hardened veterans, with whom I have shared Committees on several occasions. I am pleased to have their support for what is an important measure for sustainability. I welcome them and thank them for serving. 
 I think that hon. Members would prefer to get into the detail of the Bill rather than talking about the formal proceedings. As we discussed last night in the Programming Sub-Committee, we have tried to ensure adequate discussion on the main points of the Bill. Members will rightly want to scrutinise aspects of the Bill in detail. There are important issues of principle on the subject of fluoridation, on which there are strongly held views on both sides of the argument, and extra time has been allocated for proper discussion of that. 
 The programme motion is fair and offers adequate time for what I hope will be an interesting discussion on issues of considerable importance. The measures are important to ensure proper sustainable management of a resource that we often take for granted but would be foolish to continue so doing. It is an important resource that must be managed effectively, and the Bill gives us the powers to do that.

Bill Wiggin: I echo the Minister's kind words about you, Mr. O'Brien, and welcome you to the Chair. We all look forward to serving under your chairmanship.
 I thank the Minister for his kind words about me and agree with him that the purpose of this and future Committee sittings is to be constructive and meaningful. Those two ideas were foremost in my mind when I drafted some of the amendments that we will debate later. 
 I also note that we have 11 sittings. That is helpful because there are a lot of important issues to cover. Although it is by and large a well-meaning Bill, there are one or two lost opportunities. I look forward to members of the Committee filling some of those small but important gaps. I also welcome the extra sitting to 

 discuss fluoride. It became clear on Second Reading that hon. Members feel very strongly about that. I am sad that the debate will not be led by the Minister before us today, but by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). The Minister is right to describe water as an important resource. It is particularly unfortunate that I am sitting right in the sun on a day when we shall discuss rainfall, flooding and saving water. I look forward to an important and meaningful debate.

Norman Baker: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and myself, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. I have served under you before and I look forward to your guidance as we progress through the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have no problem with the programme motion. Indeed, we are grateful to the Government for providing the extra sitting to deal with fluoride. We think that that is sensible. The fact that the Under-Secretary will be taking that sitting for the Government again demonstrates that it belongs in a different Bill. We will nevertheless deal with it as best we can. I notice that we have a good deal of harmony as we start the Bill. I will be interested to see how long it will last. I look forward to more than just silent support for the Minister from Labour Back Benchers: I hope that his battle-hardened colleagues will join in the debate. Too often that does not happen.
 Question put and agreed to.

Bill O'Brien: I remind the Committee that there are money and ways and means resolutions in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolutions are available on the Table in the middle of the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendment that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.Clause 1 Duty to conserve water resources

Clause 1 - Duty to conserve water resources

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in
clause 1, page 1, line 5, after 'implement', insert 'effective'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 1, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'use', insert 'clean'.
 Clause stand part. 
 Government new clause 16—Duty to encourage water conservation.

Norman Baker: Perhaps we can maintain some harmony, because there seems to be general agreement that we should include the duty to conserve water resources in the Bill. It is simply a question of how we achieve it. The current formulation does not lend itself to support from the Government. They have tabled new clause 16 for the reasons that the Minister set out in a letter, which I imagine he sent to all members of the Committee—

Robert Key: No.

Elliot Morley: To Opposition spokespeople.

Norman Baker: I see. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, as he has not received the letter, I shall read the relevant paragraph:
''Clause 1 was added to the Bill by an amendment in the Lords. While the intention of the amendment is sound, as drafted it presents a number of significant concerns. The duty is very wide so there is a danger that it might have unforeseen and undesirable implications. In particular, it has been suggested that it can cut across the statutory responsibilities of regulators. The Government amendment retains the principle of the clause, whilst addressing these concerns. This will place a duty on the Secretary of State to take steps to encourage the conservation of water and report to Parliament every 3 years on the action taken.''
 I am not against the Government's move in principle, because the intention is to strengthen the duty to conserve water resources. However, I note that new clause 16 includes that dreaded phrase ''where appropriate''. That seems to be the opposite of the wide duty that the Minister complains about, and can be a narrow duty if he or his officials choose to interpret it in that way. When does he believe that it would be appropriate to 
''take steps to encourage the conservation of water''
 as the new clause says?

Robert Key: Could the hon. Gentleman kindly tell us where new clause 16 comes in the Bill, because we do not have that information?

Norman Baker: The new clause is on page 1078 of the amendment paper, if that helps members of the Committee.
 I want to tease out with the Minister some issues relating to the phrase ''where appropriate'', and I hope that he will respond when he replies to the debate. I am reassured by the fact that the new clause requires the Secretary of State, after three years, to prepare a report about the steps taken, and any steps that he proposes to take. That seems entirely sensible. The report will be laid before Parliament, which gives hon. Members an opportunity to comment on the action taken and not taken. I am reassured by that safeguard. 
 The language in the Minister's letter amuses me slightly in a wry sort of way. He says that the duty is very wide, so there is a danger of unforeseen and undesirable implications. Presumably that means that we might save more water than is intended or be even more efficient at the conservation of water than is anticipated. I hope that that is not the reason why he put that in. 
 In general, I can support new clause 16, so in due course I will beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: The purpose of amendment No. 1 is to ensure that the Committee is acutely conscious of the dilemma that we will face during the passage of the Bill. I am referring to the fact that the Environment Agency is considerably more empowered by the legislation. Its mandate is to ensure that the environment is protected, and I do not think that any of us has a problem with that until we come into conflict with human needs. That is why we must be clear about the type of water that we are discussing at each stage. There is a significant difference between
 river water and clean water or drinking water—water that does not pass on diseases and is safe for children and elderly people to drink. That is a fundamental difference. If we do not separate clean water and water as it is in the river outside, we will be unable to distinguish between the powers that are positive for protecting the environment and the powers that the Environment Agency may have to increase dramatically the cost to consumers. That is why we must be careful.
 It rains in this country, as we know, all the time. Certainly if we ask someone from France or almost anywhere else abroad, they will say that the thing about Britain is that it never stops raining. That is why I am grateful for the sun shining in my eyes today. However, we fail to conserve a great deal of that water. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said that only 2 per cent. of rainwater was conserved. If that is so, we must be clear about the type of environment that we are protecting and the type of water that we are conserving. That is why I saw fit to seek to insert the word ''clean'' before the word ''water''. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) spoke on Second Reading about the scarcity of clean water per capita in the south-east.

Diana Organ: I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. I can understand trying to separate out water that is fit for human drinking and water in our lakes and rivers, but is he advocating that the Environment Agency should not ensure that the water in our rivers, lakes and canals is as clean as we can make it? He seems to be distinguishing between one kind of water and another. I hope that he means that all the water in our natural environment should be as clean as it can be.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Lady is extraordinarily naive if she thinks that canal water should be of the same quality as the water that comes out of the tap. That is not the point of the amendment. I am grateful for her intervention for that purpose alone.

Diana Organ: I am perfectly well aware that we would not want canal water or British Waterways water to be fit to go straight into our drinking glasses, but I hope even so that the Government will give the Environment Agency, which has responsibility for the quality of our natural waters, enough powers to ensure that our waters are as clean as possible. Unfortunately, in past times, river water and river basins have been severely polluted.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister referred to his supporters as battle-hardened. I suggest that this is the wrong battle: we are talking about the duty on organisations to conserve water that has been cleaned. Most of the cost of delivering water to people's houses derives from the cleaning process, so it is extremely important to differentiate between the water in people's houses and the water outside. Throughout the Committee stage, we will be locked into a dilemma, discussing the quality of water that comes out of people's taps and the quality of water in rivers, streams, swamps, marshes and canals. We must be clear early on what the Bill will cost the consumer.

Sue Doughty: Is it not true that the Bill is about the abstraction of water for many purposes? It is about how we look after clean water that has already been treated and untreated water. This summer there has been a severe drought and river levels have fallen, with a consequent effect on the environment. Huge capital costs have been borne by water undertakers to get new supplies or to hold on to their untreated water supplies—water that is not defined as potable—thus there is a query when we discuss whether water is clean or potable. The Bill is not just about clean water but about water.

Bill Wiggin: Very cruelly, on Second Reading, I said that the hon. Lady had not read the Bill, and I apologise to her for making that personal comment. However, it is clear that she has not read the beginning of the Bill, which refers to the duties of persons who use water to do so without wasting it. If people are watering their garden with water that they have collected in a water butt, they are not wasting the same asset as if they had filled up the water butt from the tap. There is a clear differentiation between the cost of collecting, cleaning and distributing water and water that falls from the sky.

Sue Doughty: I have spent a substantial time on the Bill. Personal insults about whether I have read it do not alter the facts: we are discussing the amount of water used as a whole, and clean drinking water. The proposal is about abstraction of water from rivers and reservoirs, some of which goes through a treatment process to create potable water and some of which is used in trickle irrigation, for example, which does not use potable water.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying her point. She is right: the Bill covers all the things that she mentioned, but the part that we are discussing now is about the duty to ensure that everyone who uses water does so without wasting it.
 I want to move on from the clarification of clean or not clean water, water that has been cleaned rather than water from rivers or other sources—I referred to fresh water, I have not mentioned sea water. The Government have decided to replace the original clause. In the House of Lords, there was great concern that a Water Bill without the concept of conserving water was wrong—I agree with that opinion—and the Government have addressed many of the concerns raised. 
 I am sure that the Minister sent me a letter on the new clause, but I did not receive it, which is a shame. However, he has accepted much of the criticism levelled in another place, so I will not need to press my amendment, although I hope that the Committee will have taken note of the important difference between clean water and water that has not been through the cleaning process.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the comments from Opposition Members and their indication that they will not press their amendments. As they rightly stated, the Government do not disagree about the principle behind clause 1. Indeed, we accept it and have supported it. We simply want to ensure that the provisions stand up to the various legal pressures and
 that there is no confusion about responsibilities cutting across other regulators. We recognise that the need to conserve all water resources must be embedded in the Bill.
 Opposition Members recognise that our concerns about clause 1 are significant because a wide, general duty could have unforeseen and undesirable consequences. The question whether a particular activity constitutes an appropriate use or a waste of water will be difficult. The phrase ''appropriate use of water'' is well understood and appears a lot in legislation—that should answer the question of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). We have to consider whether there is a problem and whether it is appropriate to take action. The term ''appropriate'' means proportionate and cost-effective in terms of the measures that could be taken in an assessment of investment for both drinking water and other environmental benefits. It is an accepted term, which places a duty on the Secretary of State for the clear objective of conserving water.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: For clarification, in areas that have the potential of flooding and where there is long-term standing water, would the Minister envisage the possibility of water holding tanks for the renewal of reservoirs? There is also a proposal for him, when he is wearing another administrative hat, to consider inland holding tanks for flood water. Would he see those ideas as part of what he is trying to do with regard to clean water?

Elliot Morley: Possibly. We should get away from the term ''clean water'' when discussing this part of the Bill. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Leominster, but we are talking about all water resources. As was mentioned, the definition of ''clean water'' is potable water, but we are talking in a wider sense of water management.
 With water management for flood protection, it is common for internal drainage boards to impound their drainage ditches for the summer. They raise the water levels in the summer, so that there can be summer abstraction for agriculture. That is a perfectly sensible way of managing water. In the winter, they lower the dykes so that there is carrying capacity for rainfall. As was said, we see a holistic approach on water management for a range of benefits, one of which is flood defence. 
 Amendment No. 167 and new clause 16 have been tabled by the Government to replace clause 1 with a duty on the Secretary of State to take steps to encourage water conservation and report to Parliament on progress and proposed steps. That will advance the interest of water conservation without cutting across the existing duties of regulators or water undertakers, which was a potential problem with clause 1 as drafted. The changes will also give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the sufficiency of the water conservation measures that have been adopted.

Norman Baker: I am happy to see the new clause, but will the Minister explain a little more how the original clause would cut across the regulators? I am
 keen for the Government to consider the reduction of water use in the home or business as part of water conservation measures, and they could look at various measures, including hippo bags. However, is he saying that such measures would cut across the regulators? What would be affected?

Elliot Morley: Such measures are perfectly reasonable, and I can give the hon. Gentleman some examples of how we would see the duty to conserve being applied. First, however, I want to point out that the clause as drafted would have caused confusion among the drinking water inspectorate, water companies and the Environment Agency about where responsibility lay. The new clause will make it clear that the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for the report to Parliament on the measures taken to conserve water.
 The duty placed on the Government to promote conservation has been fulfilled in a number of ways, including: the establishment of Envirowise, which is a body that promotes water conservation; the introduction of enhanced capital allowances for investment in reducing water consumption; the promotion of the Watermark project, which enables benchmarking of water use to take place in public sector buildings; working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on planning for sustainable communities and facilitating water-efficient new housing development; the development of a voluntary water-efficient product labelling scheme, as recommended by the Water Regulations Advisory Committee; and carrying out reviews, such as the recent review of the Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999. Those are a few examples of how the duty to conserve water can be fulfilled by Government intervention and support.

Bill Wiggin: I wonder whether the Minister would also consider establishing a water saving trust to promote water-efficient technology, on the same lines as the Energy Saving Trust. Will he also examine the planning process governing the creation of reservoirs and dams, which is long, complex and expensive?

Elliot Morley: On the latter point, there are clear procedures for putting reservoirs and dams in place. As the hon. Gentleman aptly states, those procedures are governed by the planning process and often involve a public inquiry. It is difficult to short-circuit that process, because there is always a great deal of interest in those issues.
 I am familiar with the proposals for establishing a water saving trust, which have been around for a long time. I am fairly open-minded about taking such an approach, but we must ask whether the establishment of a body such as a water saving trust would achieve anything different in promoting the efficient use of water. I am not sure that it would, although the argument should be considered. At present, the priority is to ensure that the mechanisms in place deliver efficiently. The Bill is one of the ways in which we are trying to ensure that there are efficient regulations and controls and a duty on the Secretary of State to promote water conservation.

Norman Baker: Let me pick up on the point about planning, because it is important that the duty placed on the Government is placed on all Departments, and not just on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The issue of conservation in Government was raised by my colleagues in the House of Lords.
 New clause 16 establishes the Secretary of State as the relevant authority in relation to England. Does that mean that the Secretary of State will be able to influence other Departments, for example by changing building regulations to ensure that water is saved in new dwellings? If so, will such measures be included in the triennial report to Parliament referred to in the new clause?

Elliot Morley: Many of those measures are devolved and therefore are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It is important to encourage the efficient use of water across the UK, but there is a devolved aspect to it, of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Does the Minister envisage that the Secretary of State will formulate long-term extraction licences, which have been in place from time immemorial, into a more coherent system than at present? Would he see that as being provided for under the new clause?

Elliot Morley: The Bill includes provisions for dealing with licences that are currently held in perpetuity. Our long-term intention is to move all licences to time-limited licences, because our objective is the sustainable management of water. There are mechanisms in the Bill to encourage that to happen, and we will discuss them in various clauses, as we go through the Bill.
 The Government take the issue of proper water resource management seriously, and that is the intention behind the new clause. We do not disagree with the principle or the reasoning behind the amendment that was made in the other place: the new clause will make it workable in relation to the legislation. I hope that the Committee will support it.

Bill Wiggin: I have one more question. Why does the new clause contain a three-year reporting stage? Why did the Minister not choose annual reporting?

Elliot Morley: The reason is simply that, in an industry such as water, in which large infrastructure investment is involved and things do not happen overnight, a three-year reporting stage will permit a clearer picture of what is happening on water management.

Norman Baker: I need not delay the Committee further, because we have had a good run through the provision, and we are probably in the same position. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 1 disagreed to.

Clause 2 - Protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 174, in
clause 2, page 1, line 10, leave out 'furthers the establishment of' and insert 
 'establishes to the legally binding timetable required'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 175, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert 
 'and, in respect of each calendar year from 2004 onwards, lay before Parliament an annual report on their implementation.'.
 Amendment No. 2, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 27, at end add— 
 '(4) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of each calendar year from 2004 onwards, lay before Parliament an annual report on the implementation of regulations made under this section.'.
 Clause stand part.

Norman Baker: We may disagree on the amendments with regard to how European directives are enacted in domestic legislation. I am not happy with the Government's position, which is that simply because something has always happened, it must continue to happen. In other words, if someone is hanged for sheep stealing, people who steal sheep should continue to be hanged in the indefinite future. Sometimes we must reflect on and alter past practices. That must apply here due to the magnitude and importance of the water framework directive. There is no argument about that.
 I refer the Minister to comments made by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The first line of the summary of its 2002–03 report states: 
''The Water Framework Directive is a hugely important piece of legislation.''
 Everyone accepts that. The measure has been on the stocks for a considerable time. It has been progressing through the European Parliament and the EU process for some years, and so cannot have taken the Government by surprise. However, according to my colleague in the House of Lords, Baroness Sue Miller, it seems that there are two separate teams in DEFRA, one working on the Bill and one on the water framework directive, and never the twain shall meet. Is that joined-up government? A joined-up Department might be useful for a start. 
 The Minister's predecessor, in a letter of 3 March 2000, attempted to explain why the Utilities Bill had been carved up and all the water provisions taken out. By the way, those provisions reappeared without amendment in this Bill three years later. He wrote: 
''As we have been developing the draft Water Bill, it has become increasingly clear that it makes more sense to tackle all the changes we want to see made to the regulatory framework for water in a single piece of new legislation.''
 As was often the case, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) knew what 
 he was talking about on the environment. He was right. We should have had a joined-up Bill that included the water framework directive. It is not impossible to have such a Bill; we have seen that approach in Scotland. Scotland has managed to have a joint piece of legislation that has been well received by all sides. The environmental lobby, business and all political parties have recognised the value of that approach; it is a great pity that it has not been replicated in England and Wales. 
 The Secretary of State herself recognises the problems encountered in implementing European Union directives. In a speech to the Water UK conference on 2 May 2002, she said: 
''While we contest where we disagree sometimes we have been forced to accept judgements that we have under-implemented in the past. The lesson for the future is absolutely clear: we must engage from the first stages of such discussion, be more certain of what commitments actually mean, and play a full part in negotiation of new directives.''
 The thrust of her speech, which has considerable validity, is that past directives have been under-implemented. Situations such as that of the fridge mountains have arisen, and we do not want them to happen again. DEFRA's preparation, and before that the preparation of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, should have brought together the Water Bill and the water framework directive in one Bill. However, that will not happen, and that is faulty, not joined-up, government. 
 A democratic point also has to be made. Although the directive is hugely important, and it is recognised as the most far-reaching environmental legislation since the EU began, it will be dealt with by secondary legislation. That cannot be right in a democracy. It should be implemented by primary legislation with a full debate and with the scrutiny that this Bill is receiving. 
 The Minister's response in the letter sent to Opposition spokesmen simply repeats the assertion that primary legislation is not appropriate. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and others, the relevant section states: 
''Formal transposition of the Directive must be achieved by 22 December this year.''
 That suggests that the Government are late in beginning their consultation and preparation process. One might have thought that, given that warning, they could have combined the directive and these measures in primary legislation. Instead, they are scrabbling around at the last minute trying to complete consultations before a deadline that was announced some time ago. The letter continues: 
''The Government published a consultation paper in August with proposed draft transposing regulations. Our consultation period runs until October.''
 It also says: 
''An enabling power already exists in the European Communities Act'',
 and as it is standard practice, we should not worry about whether it is implemented by primary legislation. 
 I do not think that the Government have deliberately decided to bypass Parliament or stop us scrutinising the measure. However, there has been a chronic failure in the Department and its predecessor properly to anticipate what is required by the EU directive and what the Government want to achieve through the Bill. Different teams have worked on the two matters separately and, too late in the day, someone has asked, ''Why does this Bill not incorporate the directive as the Scottish legislation does?'' I guess that the Minister has been advised that it is too late to do that now. As a consequence we have a hybrid process, which is unsatisfactory. 
 It is not now sensible or achievable to incorporate the directive in the Bill, but I want to put it firmly on the record that it is wrong that the Government have got themselves in such a position and that the Bill will be less satisfactory as a consequence. Problems may arise between the terms of the Bill and those of the water framework directive when it is enacted. Will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that, when the directive is introduced by secondary legislation, it will not be necessary to amend what will then be the Water Act? Will the Act be sacrosanct, or will bits and pieces require amendment because we did not properly anticipate what would happen? I will lay money now that regulations will be introduced to do just that when the statutory instruments are considered in the not-too-distant future. 
 The amendments are an attempt to recognise that it is right to have not only primary legislation to introduce the directive but measures to check how that is progressing. For example, amendment No. 174 refers to 
''the legally binding timetable required.''
 Members should be aware that the timetable for the directive is strict. It is helpfully set out on pages 13 and 14 of a Library research paper—the Library's research papers are always helpful. About 10 or 15 dates have to be met for the water framework directive. We should be discussing that and monitoring what the Government do to ensure that it is implemented properly, instead of squirreling it away in secondary legislation as the Government want. The purpose of amendment No. 174 is to ensure that they are firmly tied to that legally binding timetable. 
 Amendment No. 175, which is not dissimilar to Conservative amendment No. 2, would require an annual report to be laid before Parliament on the implementation of the directive. Again, that is not unreasonable. It is no use the Minister saying that we can have Adjournment debates or raise matters in written questions. That is no substitute for a proper debate on major legislation. That is not simply the view of my colleagues or that of the Conservatives, although they will speak for themselves on this matter. It is the view of companies. 
 I note the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on the directive. The note sent by the Library says that the view of the Committee was that there would be a requirement for primary legislation in respect of the water framework directive. The report states: 
''South West Water Limited, however, reported to us that 'primary legislation is recommended strongly as the preferred vehicle to enable the transposition of the Water Framework Directive into national legislation' . . . We do not make a judgment on this point: although the status and comprehensive nature of the Directive amply justifies the introduction of a 'standalone' bill, the important point is the effectiveness of the transposition of the Directive into national law, not the means by which that is achieved.''

Elliot Morley: Precisely.

Norman Baker: I am being fair; I am giving the whole quotation. The Minister should not display a satisfied smile too quickly. The report goes on to say that
''until the administrative arrangements which will enable the Environment Agency to function as the competent authority have been properly explored, DEFRA cannot be certain that primary legislation is not required. We therefore repeat our recommendation that possible shortcomings in such administrative arrangements be identified as early as possible, and we recommend that the Government keep an open mind about the need for primary legislation to address such shortcomings.''
 That is a pretty clear shot across the bows of the Government. 
 I return to the point that we are talking about the biggest piece of water regulation ever. That comes from the sustainability forum in Brussels in September 2001. Presumably the Government know about that. It is major legislation, but we will have it in dribs and drabs through statutory instruments. 
 Let the Minister come clean today and say that the Department got it wrong. We will live with what we have now. We will try to go forward constructively together, but let us not pretend that this is the ideal way to deal with the water framework directive. It is not, and it is an affront to democracy to suggest that it is. It is also far from joined-up departmental thinking on a crucial issue. I look forward to the discussion on the clause.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes, particularly for the sheep-stealing analogy with which he opened his speech. It was extremely accurate. I am curious as to why the Government do not want clause 2 in the Bill. I was particularly struck by the passionate intervention by my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), about water cleanliness. I cannot understand why any hon. Member who serves on a Committee such as this would have a problem with such worthy regulations to
''prevent further deterioration of and protect and enhance the status of the aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems''.
 The whole list—I could read it, but I am sure that members of the Committee can do so perfectly adequately for themselves—is extremely worthy and important. The Government recognise that because they have already encompassed most of it in the directive. Therefore, I do not understand why they do not want the clause in the Bill. If it were damaging in any way, I would accept that, but I cannot believe that a single one of the items in clause 2 could be construed as anything other than helpful. Nor can I understand 
 what is so bad about the directive that it makes it a problem to say it twice. 
 If the legislation is going to go through as secondary legislation, why cannot it also appear as primary legislation? What is wrong with that? We were reminded of the debacle over the fridge mountain. We cannot have water mountains, but we can have water shortages. The hon. Member for Lewes was right to identify that such matters are not being handled in a way that people who are passionate about water and the environment are keen to see done. I do not understand why, if there are items in the list that contradict the rest of the Bill, the Government have not chosen to amend those, instead of removing an entire clause. 
 I would like to know whether the water framework directive pilot scheme in, I think, the Ribble basin, has drawn any conclusions yet. If, as I suspect, it has not—because it has not been operating for long—it makes even more sense to include the aspirations in any Bill, but particularly a water Bill. The Government's failure to act in a joined-up way is a shame, but if the Minister has good answers as to why that is unnecessary, I would be pleased to hear them. However, I believe that there cannot be a good explanation for why all these things are bad, when the Government have signed the water framework directive. That is a natural contradiction. 
 Amendment No. 2 would require the Government to report annually, rather than every six years. If the legislation is so important and worthy of our attention, and if it is even worth doing through secondary legislation in relation to the water framework directive, we should still know about it. The Minister's answer to my question about why he wanted to report every three years was understandable, but not necessarily acceptable, particularly as the Government are trying to take the water framework directive out of the Bill. I hope that the Government recognise that we are interested in and care about the legislation, so we want to know what is happening annually. I hope that the Minister takes that on board.

Paddy Tipping: Important points have been made during this short debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes that the way in which Parliament deals with European environmental legislation is far from satisfactory. He made a number of points. It is interesting that when one visits the Commission, the Commissioners speak highly of British officials and environmentalists. In the working groups the value of the input from British civil servants is extremely highly regarded.
 There are two problems. A problem that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State herself has identified is that at the political level, there is a tendency not to get involved in the discussion at an early enough stage to shape the framework of forthcoming legislation. There is also an issue about not examining the outcomes or the impact of the legislation. That was well exemplified by the debacle of refrigerators. 
 My hon. Friend the Minister has his eye on the ball of forthcoming directives, so I will tell him gently that 
 I have real reservations about the end-of-life vehicles directive and the so-called WEE—waste electrical equipment—directive. My impression is that we are far from prepared for the outcome of those. That reinforces the point that Parliament needs to deal more thoughtfully with European environmental legislation. The European Scrutiny Committee does valuable work but the oversight of the detail of such matters is fairly limited. There is a wide issue about how we transpose European environmental directives into British law. 
 This is an important Bill; no one should underestimate that. Set against the impact that the water framework directive will have, however, the Bill is a dwarf against a giant. The directive will be a major change to the way in which we examine the environment. The hon. Member for Lewes was perfectly fair when he talked about the Select Committee report. The Committee kept an open mind about whether the directive should be dealt with in primary or secondary legislation, and the Government decided to use secondary legislation. The hon. Gentleman accepted that. The decision has been made; the clock has ticked on, and there is no point re-examining the matter. 
 There is a need to raise awareness about the impact of the directive. It has to be implemented over 15 years, and we are well into that time scale. The directive will have a major effect on planning issues for local authorities, so we must ask how they will be involved, and on the way that we farm the land. The directive's significance has not yet been appreciated, and we need to get on with raising awareness. The need to consult the public is implicit in the directive, and a campaign is needed to deliver its aims. We are just at the beginning of that process. 
 The hon. Member for Leominster mentioned the Ribble pilot study. We should remember that initially it was decided that the United Kingdom would not have a pilot study—the Environment Agency was used to dealing with catchment areas—but subsequently there was a change of mind, and it was decided that a pilot study would be carried out. 
 My views as to whether the directive is dealt with in primary or secondary legislation are fairly catholic. The necessity now is for a big, detailed campaign on the directive, because we underestimate its significance at our peril.

Robert Key: May I first say what a pleasure it is to be back in Room 14 with you, Mr. O'Brien? We probably first sat on a Standing Committee in this Room in about 1983. The face of politics has changed since then, just as it is about to change again at the next election.
 I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster on amendment No. 2. I support the hon. Member for Lewes as far as he goes, but he does not go nearly far enough. He is far too kind to the Minister. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, but I believe that the way that Parliament scrutinises these affairs is wrong. The hon. Gentleman assumes that the Minister is simply doing 
 what he is told, because that is what Parliament has decided. That is not a good enough excuse. When the water framework directive is discussed by the House it will be in a single Committee sitting, and the Committee will not take any substantive votes to amend anything because it cannot. There is a popular misconception that statutory instrument Committees talk about things and then vote on them; they do not. It is a travesty that this extraordinary parliamentary chicanery continues. 
 I find it quite extraordinary that Government and Labour Members are prepared to delete clause 2 against the wishes of a wide range of national organisations. I am astonished that they are not prepared to listen to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the wildlife trusts, the WWF, the Woodland Trust, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the Herpetological Conservation Trust, Friends of the Earth, Buglife or the British Ecological Society. All those bodies are astounded that the water framework directive, the most far-reaching legislation to affect the water industry, the consumer and the environment, will be dealt with in a statutory instrument by a small Standing Committee. The directive raises such important issues that we should give it much more urgent consideration. It is a powerful tool that, if used properly, could result in much more efficient and equitable use of public money and bring huge benefit to our rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands. 
 The directive requires controls on abstractions, which must be periodically reviewed to meet European standards—that does not conflict with the Bill, so why can we not just say so? There is also a range of issues on which Ministers have failed to establish the appropriate administrative structures. An example is integrated catchment management; why can that not be included in the Bill, if we are all signed up to it, which, apparently, we are? In addition, there has been insufficient investment in the Environment Agency to ensure that the science underlying classification and risk assessment is robust. The directive must proceed with solid science underlying it. I am not convinced that that is the case, so we should say so and invest properly in the Environment Agency. 
 As the hon. Member for Lewes mentioned, the Government have failed to link water planning with land use and agriculture policies. I find that astonishing, as I said on Second Reading. I certainly will not support the amendment to delete clause 2, but I do support my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: There are four parts to this. The first, which is where the Minister has it wrong, concerns nitrogen deficiency and nitrogen-susceptible land. The directive will cover that. The Minister has been involved in many debates about the fact that the use of nitrogen and fertilisers in sensitive areas causes more trouble than it is worth. The retention of the clause will deal with that.
 The second part concerns the Forestry Commission and the massive areas of afforestation. Trees create ecological change, which is covered by the directive. It can be used in the ecological planning of large areas of 
 forestation, which has been the policy of successive Governments since the war, and is set to continue. 
 The third part, which is closer to the Minister's power, is drainage boards, which plan the control of aquatic life a long way ahead. The Minister commented earlier on water levels, and the directive covers those too, which is vital. 
 The final matter is the vital role of the management committees of the Environment Agency, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster mentioned. The Environment Agency does a phenomenal job, and its management committees look after waterways throughout the United Kingdom. The directive gives them protection, not just from the Secretary of State making arbitrary decisions or passing laws, but in the context of the European Parliament. Ecologically, it is a great shame that the Minister is looking to remove that protection; he is missing something vital.

George Osborne: I decided to take part in the debate because it became so interesting that I had to say something. It is a pleasure, Mr. O'Brien, to serve under your joint chairmanship—[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]
 —or perhaps I should say the changing chairmanship of yourself and Mr. Amess. 
 I have little to add to what has been said by my colleagues, but I should like to make a point that was raised in the House of Lords when the clause was inserted in the Bill, against the Government's wishes. The water framework directive is the unmentioned guest at the Committee's banquet. It will have a huge impact on water management. The Government's consultations before drafting the regulations that will give effect to the directive are ongoing—the latest consultation round began only last month. 
 It is extraordinary, and difficult to comprehend, that a water Bill has been introduced when the Government are consulting on various regulations to introduce a directive. It would have made more sense to wait and see what shape the regulations take after consultation and to ask what else is needed in UK law to improve water management, rather than doing two things at the same time, as several peers said when the Bill was discussed in the House of Lords. 
 As the Government have decided to introduce the Bill while they are consulting on the directive, they should at least recognise the existence of the directive, which is precisely what the clause does. I do not understand why the Government will not accept it, as they will have to do what it proposes anyway. For example, subsection (1) states: 
''The Secretary of State shall by regulations ensure the timely establishment of a working framework that furthers the establishment of practices required by Directive''.
 Indeed, the Government are under a legal obligation to implement the directive in a timely fashion, so I cannot understand why the Minister does not say, ''Look, this is a good thing to have in the Bill as it recognises the importance of the directive.'' It means that if a layman or woman reading the Bill asked what 
 it was all about they would understand that the directive existed, and the Minister would probably avoid a battle in the other place. Why will not the Minister accept the proposal?

Diana Organ: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), I served on the Select Committee that inquired into the water framework directive. The Committee recognised that it is an important measure; possibly the largest and most important of the European directives. It recognised, too, that a water basin management approach was the best model for conservation and for the protection of water and the water supply.
 I, too, am anxious that the Government should take note of the need to prepare to enact the water framework directive in its entirety. Why is it necessary to remove the clause now? It would be appropriate to keep it to protect the waterways. I want the Minister to clarify why the clause should be removed.

Elliot Morley: Once again, I welcome you to the chair, Mr. Amess. It is nice to see you here.
 I take my hon. Friend's point about the directive. I am concerned about the tenor of some of the discussions that suggest that we cannot implement the directive without a Bill, and that because we do not think a Bill appropriate we are not signed up to the concept of the directive. That is not true, and I am happy to explain why it is not appropriate to include the measure in this Bill. 
 First, as has rightly been recognised, the timetable is legally binding on the Government. We have signed it, and it has been agreed in the Council of Ministers and scrutinised by the European Parliament. Incidentally, amendments cannot be made in the European Scrutiny Committee; the European structure is the place for amendments—that is the nature of our relationship with the European Parliament and the European Council. 
 The directive will provide many long-term benefits for this country. It is the largest directive ever to come from the EU—my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is right to say that it is of fundamental importance—and it will be challenging. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that it is not due to be implemented fully until 2015. We do not need the Bill to transpose it; we will transpose it at the end of the year, when we are on target with the general framework directive. We are on our third consultation on the framework directive, as hon. Members who serve on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee are aware. 
 I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood that there are wider issues related to transposition and the formulation of European directives. One improvement that the EU could make would be to adopt the UK system of regulatory impact assessments of legislation. Sometimes, the EU signs up to what seems to be a good idea, without thinking about the long-term consequences or the time scales and frameworks. I 
 fully understand the point that my hon. Friend made about the WEE directive and the end-of-life vehicles directive, and I assure him that I am aware of those issues. 
 I shall outline the reasons why we do not support the inclusion of the clause in the Bill. First, the comparison with Scotland is incorrect. The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, from the Scottish Parliament, does not give full effect to the directive. Much of it will be implemented through secondary legislation. The Scottish Executive acknowledges that further work needs to be done, and it is explicit in the directive that this is the start of a long-term process. 
 The full water framework directive cannot be implemented in the Bill because there are years of work still to be done in relation to the directive. Moreover, although I do not disagree with much of the text in clause 2—it is appropriate in relation to the objective of the clause, and to the implementation of the directive—there are some specific issues to which I will draw the Committee's attention. For example, the difference between ''excellent'' and ''good'' in relation to water quality has enormous cost implications, because similar benefits may accrue for ''good'' and for ''excellent'' status. Such issues should be properly scrutinised and subjected to proper consultation. They should not be banged into the Bill because that is considered desirable—albeit with worthy objectives—without thinking of the long-term consequences of measures that will take years to implement fully.

Sue Doughty: Reference was made to the Scottish legislation, which incorporated the European framework directive. Did the Minister have a good look at what happened in Scotland and, if so, what view did he take on the fact that the Government of the day implemented it in the 2003 Act?

Elliot Morley: But we have not implemented it into the Act—that is the point that I made. There is a misunderstanding. The 2003 Act does not fully implement the framework directive. It is included because the Scottish Parliament does not have the range of secondary legislation that is available to this Parliament. The Act will not implement the framework directive—the full process must be gone through.
 The wording in clause 2 is premature, unnecessary, and has not been subjected to proper scrutiny. We need to examine that wording carefully as part of a proper consultation process—[Interruption.] It may well be said that we should do it now, but the Bill concentrates on a range of important and specific issues concerning resource management. Those issues will be complementary and will form part of the ultimate water framework directive, because the Bill will put in place tools that will be helpful in achieving the outcomes of that directive. The Bill is on the route, but it is not the definitive and conclusive method of implementing the directive, because of the directive's huge implications and the work that still needs to be done on it up to 2015. I cannot understand the reason—it seems almost to be panic—to have the measure in the Bill, when the Bill already fits nicely into the route for full implementation. 
 I am pleased to say that we have a pilot scheme. The Environment Agency has much experience in catchment area management, but in my view the pilot scheme goes beyond that. I particularly like the way in which communities are being involved. I have been to the Ribble valley to see the implementation of the catchment plan and to talk to the various stakeholder groups. I am a great enthusiast for that sort of approach. 
 A great strength of the framework directive, particularly in engaging people to meet the objectives that I believe are desirable, is that it will increase the range of people who have an interest in water. However, that process rightly involves proper public consultation and scrutiny, which I might say goes beyond this place. We have an important role as legislators, but I happen to think that scrutiny goes beyond Parliament. I believe that we should involve community groups, and have proper public involvement and scrutiny. The framework deals with that, and it is premature to start being so definitive as suggested in clause 2. The clause is unnecessary, and its language is confusing. 
 The Department is taking a joined-up approach. The water framework directive team and the officials who have been working on the Bill are in the same directorate within DEFRA. They are working together, but on different time scales. The time scale of the Bill and that of the directive are different. The Bill is an important and continuing part of implementing the directive. 
 The Government and I are fully committed to the directive. Perhaps I am being unfair to Opposition Members, but my impression is that they think that if the provisions of clause 2 are not included in the Bill, we shall not have a water framework directive. That is not the case.

David Drew: My hon. Friend makes a passionate defence of the Government's position. I am less concerned about the water framework directive; it is a worthy approach. However, it is long on words and relatively short on how it is to be implemented. I look for reassurance from my hon. Friend on what greater protection can be given to estuaries. We know about the Ribble pilot scheme, but one of the great threats to the Severn is that there is no consistency in water management, especially in relation to flooding, the use of the river, buildings and so on. What assurance can my hon. Friend give me that we will take estuaries much more seriously and put management policies into place that will stop some of the daft things that were done in the past?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend will know that, as part of our approach to flood planning, we are moving to entire catchment studies. We have committed a lot of money to them, and he will know that the Severn is one of the areas where they will be implemented. The effects of planning on the estuary will be studied. We are also moving towards better coastal planning and shoreline management plans, and how to integrate plans in order to protect estuaries, of which the Severn is an important one. Some important issues are arising in relation to shoreline management plans and potential management on the Severn that will result
 in better environmental and coastal defence. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of these exciting proposals, and there will be an opportunity for an ongoing discussion on the topic.
 I feel strongly about the water framework directive, to which I am committed. It is exactly the right way to go. We should take a holistic approach to biological quality as well as to chemical quality. I sometimes feel that people are unnecessarily distracted. The Bill contains many important measures. The directive will continue to be subject to the consultation to which we are committed and to the scrutiny of a European Standing Committee, which I would not underestimate, speaking as someone who is often at the end of it. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee also provides detailed scrutiny, and it has already done a good job on the water framework directive. As I mentioned, it said that it is the implementation of the directive, rather than the mechanism of implementation, that is important. 
 I am saying only that we do not need to include the provisions in the Bill. I am surprised that Opposition Members, who often complain about bureaucracy and excessive legislation, are asking for unnecessary legislation. Considering the wider public consultation and involvement, it would be far better to proceed along the time scales and mechanisms to which we have committed ourselves, rather than distract the issue in a Bill that cannot possibly implement the directive. We would risk going off half cocked if we tried to rush it through in that way. A directive of such fundamental importance deserves better scrutiny than that.

Bill Wiggin: I am impressed by the Minister's reply—I wish I could do indignation as well as that.

Diana Organ: Such righteousness.

Bill Wiggin: Indeed, it was a most righteous, indignant and passionate defence of what is clearly indefensible. The Minister made a fundamental mistake in suggesting that clause 2 would implement the water framework directive, but we all heard him say, time and again, that leaving clause 2 in the Bill would not, by itself, implement the directive. The Minister is right, and it is not the intention behind the Bill to implement the water framework directive, which we know is rolling forward like a juggernaut. We merely want to ensure that the principles that everyone, including the Minister, has accepted remain in the Bill, which is not the same as asking the Government to implement the directive in the Bill. We want the principles that we all admire to be implemented at our speed rather than by 2015. If we agree that the principles are good, we must include them in the Bill. We do not need to wait until we have completed third consultations or for the water framework directive to be introduced. We can do it now and lead the way.

George Osborne: Did my hon. Friend listen with as much interest as I did to the contributions from Government Members? They again questioned whether the Government have an overall strategic
 approach to water management. Would not clause 2 and the amendments help the Government with their own supporters by setting out in the Bill their overall strategic approach for water management?

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I suspect that his opposite number has other ways of dealing with Labour Members. I was also grateful to all the interventions and speeches from all my colleagues on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, because they were right. There are many problems with the water framework directive, but no one has a difficulty with the principles currently in the Bill. My constituency is not a million miles from the River Severn—the River Wye flows into it—and when we are legislating about water, it is important to take such principles on board.

Elliot Morley: That is the point that I was trying to make. The principles will become law if they remain in the Bill, but they may or may not be relevant to the principles in the way that we transpose the water framework directive. Members realise that the Bill cannot implement the framework because the time scales are wrong. The phrases deserve proper scrutiny, and it would be a serious mistake to start including bits of implementation in one Bill when they apply to another.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister is right, but his comments highlight the difference between us. We want not to take a bite out of the water framework directive and sellotape it to the Bill, but to take the parts with which we all agree and ensure that that they are included. The Minister may say that that would mean that the water framework directive would not work, but we disagree. I believe that it would. The principles are worthy, so if there is a problem with the wording in the Bill, we must amend that rather than abandoning the principles altogether.

Siôn Simon: I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's persuasive arguments, but which of his arguments for including the framework directive in the Bill would not also apply to the ten commandments and to the Magna Carta, with which we all agree? Shall we also put those in the Bill?

Bill Wiggin: I am not certain that I have completely understood the hon. Gentleman's intervention. If we were legislating on mediaeval history or biblical matters, we might choose to include the ten commandments or even the wording from the Magna Carta. We are, however, debating water, so there is nothing wrong with including some of the best principles from the water framework directive in the Bill. That would have two advantages. First, it would ensure that the Government are kept on the environmental straight and narrow. Secondly, it might ensure that the legislation is enacted before 2015.

George Osborne: I understood the Minister to say that he disagrees with parts of the clause, or that they were ill thought-out, or that we had not examined their implications. My reading of the clause is that it contains only good things. Does my hon. Friend agree
 that it would help the Committee if the Minister could set out—now, or by writing to Committee members—where he disagrees, or where the Government disagree, with the objectives in the clause?

Bill Wiggin: The Minister will have to reply to that intervention.

Elliot Morley: I have already done so. One example springs to mind: the definitions of ''good'' and ''excellent'' and their implications. We have to think about the implications in relation to how the definitions are applied, cost-benefit analysis and the likely results. I want the best water quality, but those wordings have implications that must be properly scrutinised. The public should also be properly consulted. The Bill is not appropriate for that.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. If the consultation on the water framework directive is at its third stage, and if the wording of the clause has come straight from the water framework directive, I do not understand why that consultation was not done properly.
 I agree with the Minister's comments about having the proper wording so that the difference between ''good'' and ''excellent'' is clarified. The correct way to deal with the problem is not to abandon the clause. It would reassure me if the Minister were to choose which words he would like edited, amended or even removed. To remove the whole clause is to abandon the principle, which would be a great mistake.

Sue Doughty: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whether or not the European framework directive is implemented, the clause needs to be in place to address all the environmental issues that we have been discussing?

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Lady is right. We must stick to our guns on this matter because the clause is right. The Minister knows that it is right, as do the Government, otherwise they should not have signed up to the water framework directive. We have to be firm with our principles.

George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that a possible exit strategy from this mess may be for the Government to hold their fire at this stage and not remove the clause? The Minister could then reconsider the wording to see whether there is anything that he particularly wants to amend, and we could discuss it again on Report. The Government can then remove the clause if they believe that it should not be in the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: I thought that that was a helpful intervention until I saw the Minister shaking his head in a most unhelpful manner.
 It is apparent from this debate that there is a desire throughout the Committee to do good with the Bill. There is a desire to see proper environmental and water resources protected. We are failing if we remove this provision lock, stock and barrel, without saving at least some of the principles. The Minister looks as if he is going to say something helpful, so I shall conclude.

Elliot Morley: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will find what I am going to say helpful. To reiterate, clause 2 is a regulation power. We do not
 need that regulation power in the Bill. This is not a Bill for implementing the water framework directive; we have an adequate process for that. Much of the content of clause 2 is perfectly worthy and involves principles to which the Government are happy to sign up. Those will be transposed, in the timetable that we have agreed with the European Union in the water framework directive. It is not appropriate for this Bill to deal with those matters, which are distracting us from the Bill's main principles.

Norman Baker: I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Amess; we have seen a lot of each other this week, one way or another.
 The Minister pulled every lever to try to justify removing this clause. We have been given every possible reason from the ministerial book of excuses, from page 1 to page 93—or even later. We were told that the Opposition had somehow said that clause 2 was being removed because the Government were not committed to the water framework directive. Of course they are committed to the water framework directive; no one has suggested otherwise. That was an Aunt Sally put up by the Minister. No one has suggested that; it is a complete red herring, and I invite hon. Members to disregard that comment. 
 The most important point concerns how we deal with major European Union directives. The hon. Members for Sherwood and for Forest of Dean made that point to the Minister, quite rightly, non-confrontationally and constructively, saying, as I understood it, that we cannot go on dealing with major legislation from Europe through secondary legislation. That is not an acceptable way for Parliament to deal with such legislation in the 21st century. I am sure that the Minister knows—he is an educated chap—that other European Union countries do not deal with secondary legislation in that way. They do not even do so in Scotland—he gave the game away on that. Scotland has bits of the water framework directive in the Bill because, as the Minister said, they do not have the range of secondary legislation there that we have. That is right. They decided to deal with things in the new Parliament rather more democratically and effectively north of the border. 
 It is time that we changed the way in which we deal with secondary legislation. The situation has come to a head with this measure, as the Minister knows, for two reasons. First, the water framework directive—as everyone accepts, including the Minister, his colleagues, and Opposition Members—is a hugely important piece of water legislation that affects everyone in the country. No one denies that. Secondly, its implementation by regulation and consultation is running in parallel to a Bill dealing with water. There does not seem to be much evidence of a joined-up process; even if there were, there is an argument for bringing the two together. Those two arguments, about the nature of the directive and the ongoing process, suggest that we should not have secondary legislation for such a directive. It is frankly indefensible that the arrangements in Parliament mean that such a measure is dealt with by secondary legislation. 
 The hon. Member for Salisbury is right to say that scrutiny in the Standing Committees on statutory instruments is not the same. It is not the same at all. I have tried in this Parliament to give hon. Members the opportunity to amend statutory instruments. It is an all or nothing situation. I am sure that hon. Members, whether in opposition or in government, will recognise that the situation is not satisfactory. We cannot suggest sensible amendments to statutory instruments, because we are in a Russian roulette situation, or a shoot-out: we accept either everything or nothing. No one wants to reject an entire SI, so the Minister—whoever it happens to be—bluffs his or her way through and says that we should accept it, when actually it should be amended. That cannot be a satisfactory way to approach legislation. 
 The Minister said that the directive cannot be amended. Of course a directive has been accepted by the European Commission and the European Parliament, but a directive is an enabling piece of legislation. It is not a regulation like that on tachographs in lorries. How each country implements a directive changes. We have flexibility in how we implement the objectives set out in the directive. 
 Other countries use that flexibility. Scotland used it, notwithstanding the Minister's comments. Of course the entire water framework directive is not there. No one said that it was. That was another Aunt Sally in the Minister's response. Scotland has recognised the need to bring the two elements together. We have not done so down here. We are told that the water framework directive is all or nothing. We can take it or leave it. We can vote it down or vote it through. Honourable Members on the Labour Benches—I use the word ''honourable'' deliberately—will want to look at these things properly, but they will not want to be disloyal to their Government. They will end up voting for things that they would prefer to amend.

Robert Key: In fact, it is even worse. Members of a statutory instrument Committee are not asked to agree or disagree with the substance of the discussion on the instrument, but to agree the motion that they have considered it. There is no question that they are approving what they are asked to discuss.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We will be faced with a major piece of European legislation, asked to say yea or nay with no opportunity to amend anything. We will then be in the hands of the officials at DEFRA and we must hope that they have got it right. We, as elected Members, will have no meaningful input into that process.
 Another lever that the Minister pulled was to say that we have scrutiny outside Parliament. Well, dear me. Of course we have scrutiny outside Parliament. We have pressure groups, the media and all sorts of people, but that does not mean that we should not have scrutiny inside Parliament. That argument could be applied by Robert Mugabe for what is happening in Zimbabwe. There is scrutiny outside the Harare Parliament, but there is still a need for some democratic processes there.

Bill Wiggin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not suggest that DEFRA should take lessons from the only Government in the world who treat their farmers worse than we do.

Norman Baker: I would not wish to align the Government with that of Robert Mugabe. The Minister and his colleagues at DEFRA are far more amenable to democracy. The fact that people outside Parliament are looking at something—as indeed they should—does not obviate the need for people inside Parliament to do the job for which we were elected, which is to scrutinise legislation, suggest amendments and make them. That applies to us wherever we are on the political spectrum. That is taken away from us by this ludicrously archaic system of unamendable secondary legislation.
 I know quite a bit about Sweden, and the Swedish method of dealing with European legislation is far superior to ours. That applies to other European Union countries, as the hon. Members for Sherwood and for Forest of Dean will doubtless know. We should learn lessons and not be afraid to say that we do not do things properly in this Parliament. Even Norway, which is not even in the EU, scrutinises European legislation rather better than we do. I have been there and I have seen how it is followed in a shadow process. Half the time, people there know more about what is going on than we do. 
 The Minister's argument simply does not wash. He pulled another lever when he said that we should not have bits of legislation pushed into bits of Bills. We have fluoride here, so that argument falls for a start. Bits of other legislation are coming into this Bill. Even the Government admit that it is a health measure, because the Health Minister is coming along to deal with it. The only argument left to the Minister was that it was not appropriate. Dear me, is that the best we can come up with under the circumstances? 
 The Minister has not convinced me at all. If he does not like the words in clause 2—that was another red herring—let him amend them. I am happy to accept his views and listen carefully to him and his officials when they say that ''good'' should be ''excellent'' or vice versa. I am happy for him to say that a few words here and there are wrong, but because a few words are wrong is no reason to throw out the whole clause. The clause contains an important principle. It demonstrates even at this late stage that there is a connection between the water framework directive and the Water Bill. We all know that there is a connection, but the Minister does not want to state it explicitly in the Bill. He should. I asked him earlier to give me an absolute guarantee that the regulations would not amend the Bill, but he did not. I should like him to do so now.

Elliot Morley: Absolute guarantees are rare in any walk of life. The draft transposing regulations for the water framework directive will not affect potential changes to the Bill. Another argument against clause 2 is that I cannot say whether there will be implications for the Bill as we go through the consultation process.

Norman Baker: I hear what the Minister says, but the water framework directive requires us, among other things, to
''promote sustainable water use based on long term protection of available water resources''
 and it requires 
''comprehensive river basin management plans to manage surface water and groundwater''
 and 
''member states to ensure that there is no deterioration in the ecological status of water bodies,''
 and so on. I suggest that the regulations might impact on what we shall have agreed here in terms of extraction licences and other matters. I am grateful that the Minister has conceded that, although he does not anticipate problems, he cannot guarantee that this will not be amended. That demonstrates, yet again, that our processes are not linked, and should be. 
 My final point is that it is time that Members of Parliament stood up and said, ''We want to do our job. We expect to do it properly, and to scrutinise properly, and we expect important European legislation to be subject to proper scrutiny by all parties, so that hon. Members are able to know what is going on, with a proper time scale, to consider primary legislation in the way in which it should be considered and to amend.'' That point trans—

Bill Wiggin: Transcends.

Norman Baker: Thank you. It transcends all political parties and all Members of the House. For that reason, I invite the Committee not to delete clause 2. In that light, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 13

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 2 disagreed to.

Clause 3 - Licences to abstract water

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in
clause 3, page 2, line 29, at beginning insert— 
 '( ) Each licence to abstract water shall be issued in response to an application for planning permission. 
 ( ) The Environment Agency shall be consulted as part of the planning decision.'.
 Unlike my colleagues, Mr. Amess, I have not welcomed you to the Chair, and I should like to do that straight away. The amendment addresses the relationship between water abstraction and planning. I am no expert on legal drafting, planning or water abstraction. However, I want to ensure that any business that wishes to abstract—when I wrote the amendment I had in mind quarries and mineral water companies—has to take just one course of action in order to develop. At present, it would have to have an abstraction licence that was a separate entity to the planning application that would need to be granted in the case of quarrying abstract sand, gravel, rock or any type of stone. 
 It is rarely possible to quarry without abstracting water. That is why the amendment would draw together the planning application and the abstraction licence application. It would ensure that for environmental reasons the Environment Agency is part of the consultation when the planning application is under review. 
 I hope that that is clear. It is not a complicated concept but it is important, because if planning applications are separate from abstraction licences, the abstraction licence may have a shorter life than the planning application, in which case businesses that have permission to extract rock, for example, may not be allowed to do so in the long term. It would be short-sighted of any measure to allow such a delay; if it is environmentally safe to abstract water, the business should be able to go ahead, provided that it has planning permission. Would not it be so much better if it were all part of the same process? Would not it be better to streamline the legislative burden so that businesses could compete on a level playing field with those abroad? We recognise that there would be a benefit, especially for quarries, if their abstraction licence was coterminous with their planning permission. 
 There is little point in issuing planning permission without an abstraction licence, because when that expires so, effectively, will the planning permission. Businesses should not be hamstrung by separating the two.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I support my hon. Friend's argument. He used the example of quarries, and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) mentioned canals and other sources of water extraction, and I shall refer to them and to farms. We must consider three things in respect of the proposal: first, who will take the final decision? Counties and districts consider planning applications, and in a dispute between a county and a district or a parish, the application may eventually go to appeal before the Minister, which may cause enormous problems, because such matters are time-sensitive. If they have to go through the planning mechanism, they take an enormous amount of time. Another point to be borne in mind is that the weather conditions in this country change rapidly.
 Secondly, as subsections 1(a), (b) and (c) of new section 24A of the Water Resources Act 1991 refer to a period of 28 days or longer, are there any provisions for a system of roll-over licences? For example, a quarry may want to remove a tonnage of stone but something goes wrong and it will take longer to extract the material. Can the planning application be rolled over, rather than people having to re-apply and go through the whole process again? 
 Thirdly, boring for water is one of the most inexact sciences I have ever come across. You bore a hole and it does not quite work, so you bore another hole and keep on. [Interruption.] The Minister kindly refers to divining, which I have tried but not mastered. The scientific world is probably better at divining than anything else. Boring for water, which is frequently undertaken in this country, may cause problems for the Minister, because water moves around rapidly. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that the planning system must be flexible enough to take that into consideration, and this proposal is not flexible enough to do so. The Minister may like to think about that.

Robert Key: I genuinely want to hear from the Minister what the Government propose to do about this problem. Things have moved on over the years, but the Bill makes no mention of the relationship between sustainable water supplies, sewerage and planning issues, such as housing developments in industrial use. Nor is there any reference to water in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which is currently before the House. The situation seems to be completely unsustainable, and must be remedied.
 It is nonsense that a planning authority can consult a water company, but that the company is not a statutory consultee. In any event, the water company is obliged under statute to supply whatever it is asked to supply. It cannot refuse to supply a certain housing development or support an industrial development. It cannot refuse to supply water, or to take effluent, treat it and return it to the rivers. 
 We must address the problem of the interface with planning if we are to be serious about issues such as the water framework directive. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince me. This issue is of great practical significance. Water companies in my part of the world have real problems with sewage flooding in winter, because the land is primarily chalk-based. We have the problem of winter bournes and the water table rising substantially most winters. Indeed, it used to rise absolutely predictably and regularly until we started abstracting a lot. We will store up enormous problems for ourselves if we cannot solve this problem for the planning authorities. The implementation of catchment management schemes will also make nonsense of the water framework directive. We need answers from the Government now. 
 I wholly support my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster in raising this extremely important issue.

Sue Doughty: I join others in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. Given your substantial
 environmental interests, we look forward to your wisdom in dealing with us through our deliberations.
 I have no current declarable interest. I do, however, declare a minor interest as a former water company employee, and I will be a pensioner of that water company in the future. The amendment is interesting. We awaited the explanation for it, because it appeared merely to introduce more bureaucracy. 
 These are difficult times for water—there are the problems of climate change—and I appreciate that the constituency of the hon. Member for Leominster may have had more rainfall this summer than did other parts of the country. Maps produced by the Environment Agency, which are reproduced in the Library's research paper on the Water Bill, show that the precipitation is desperately low. Our main problem is where we will get our water from and how we plan for it, especially in areas of very high use—the Thames gateway development was referred to on Second Reading. 
 The Minister very usefully told us that we now have the Committee to worry about this problem. However, it remains to be seen whether the Committee will do the rain dances at the right moment, or whether it has other plans in place. We wait with anticipation and excitement to hear where the water will come from. 
 It was said on Second Reading that we would all be against the Thames gateway development for some peculiar and parochial reason of our own. There was no reason to make that statement. We do not necessarily oppose it. However, we recognise that that development, more than any other, encapsulates the major problem of water shortages, water planning and announcements made about housing and other developments while there is no clear idea of where the water will come from. The amendment is therefore useful. 
 Thames gateway has the highest consumption of water per capita. We are using more water not only, as some like to say, because it is leaking, although there are problems to do with that, but because as individuals we water our gardens and like to take a shower when the weather is hot, as it has been in the past few months. We wash our clothes much more often and put things in the dishwasher. We are cleaner than we used to be, and that is not a bad thing, but it increases demand. 
 The points that the hon. Member for Salisbury made about winter bourns are true. There are a number of winter bournes in the Thames basin system, but they have been depleted, and species such as the water vole have been lost because they have not been replenished in the winter owing to over-abstraction in the Thames area. There are problems there that are not unconnected with new developments. 
 We must recognise that when applications are made we must be satisfied that we know where the water is coming from. Because of those concerns, we shall support the Conservatives on the amendment.

Elliot Morley: I hope that there is not too much boring for water in the Committee—we have a long way to go and are only at the beginning.
 There is already guidance to planning authorities about applications to take into account water resources. Hon. Members are probably aware that the Environment Agency is a statutory consultee in planning applications. Water companies have a responsibility to undertake forward planning for potential resource demand, and they are also part of the planning process. It would therefore be wrong to think, as the hon. Member for Salisbury seems to, that there is no consideration of planning applications and the expectation that water companies will provide water and sewerage. The system does not work like that and we would not expect it to.

Norman Baker: I thought that the position was exactly that, and that water companies could not resist applications in the way that they could before the Water Act 1989, when they could have a veto in certain circumstances. Now they cannot have a veto but are told that there is a statutory duty on them to connect and supply water. In a situation such as the one that we are facing in the south-east, where, according to Government policy, a huge number of houses are to be built and where water is least available, surely that is a recipe for disaster.

Elliot Morley: It would be if no consideration had been given to water resource management, but that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. He is quite right to mention the statutory obligation on water companies to provide their services, but water resource issues and availability must be taken into account in the long-term planning. That is certainly true of, for example, the Thames gateway. The provision of water and sewerage is taken into account for that project, which is a major planning proposal and, I might add, Europe's biggest brownfield development.

Robert Key: Yes, of course, the Minister is right: those matters are taken into account and the advice of the Environment Agency is no doubt listened to. However, it remains a fact that the company providing the water and sewerage cannot refuse to do so on planning grounds, and that is unsustainable. It is true, I am told, that the provision of water for those extra hundreds of thousands of houses will not be a problem. However, what will be the cost to the area from which the water will have to be supplied? What will be the impact on the upper Thames valley of abstracting the water in the lower Thames valley?
 The Minister cannot have the argument both ways. He cannot say on one hand, ''Yes, we'll take it into account,'' but on the other, ''It's absolutely right that they can't say no.''

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Elliot Morley: Again, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the requirements on the water companies and the longer-term strategic approach to water resource management and supply. The issues are important, and the impact of transferring water must
 be taken into account, if that is required. The Bill imposes a requirement on water companies to produce long-term water resource plans—and, incidentally, drought plans, which are slightly different from, but allied to, water supply. Those issues have been included, so it would be wrong to think that they had been ignored in relation not only to projections of housing demand and growth—water supply must of course be taken into account—but to new build and new design opportunities for minimising water use in a sustainable way. We need to explore those opportunities.
 The hon. Member for Leominster said that he does not think that the amendment is properly drafted or legally compliant—indeed, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to try to link two regulatory regimes—the planning regime for quarrying and the proposed abstraction licensing scheme. I understand his point because some quarries have very long-term planning permission under the different legislation on minerals. That is a potential problem because quarry dewatering can have a significant impact on water resources and the environment, which is why such matters have been brought within the scope of the Bill. 
 The Government intend to close the current exemption for dewatering and to bring it within the regulatory regime for managing water resources. The Environment Agency was established for, among other things, that very purpose. It has detailed duties, including the determination of abstraction licences and the conditions attached to them. The agency is clearly the proper authority for that role. It is already a consultee of the planning authority, so the part of the amendment that relates to that is not needed. 
 I expect the agency and planning authorities to co-operate in dealing with such issues. They should liaise—as they do—on the scope of environmental impact assessments and to ensure that they cover the needs of both regimes. However, the effects of quarrying on the water environment are, by their very nature, difficult to predict. Opposition Members have made the point that the water environment is sensitive to the effects of climate change. The time scale for reviews may necessarily be different given the horizon of planning permission. Reviews may be out of sync, which is why different approaches are necessary. 
 If the quarrying industry is committed to dealing positively with impacts on the environment, I can assure it that because it is not a consumer of water, it has nothing to fear from the introduction of the new regime, and we will have the opportunity to discuss that point in further detail as we go through the Bill. For new sites, we must ensure that there is sustainable development from the start. Time-limited licences, with an option for review on renewal, are the sustainable approach, which we are trying to take. If the initial duration of the licence affects investment, it can be dealt with as part of the application and determination process by the agency, or indeed by the Secretary of State on appeal, if it should be required.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister has touched on the Achilles heel of the argument. Investment, particularly in quarrying, is normally based on at least a 25-year
 amortisation. The Bill seeks to reduce that period to 12 years—the period for which a licence will definitely be granted without review—which would dramatically change the calculation of the required investment. That will have a fundamental effect on the price of stone, which will be passed on to users. As the majority of users are councils, that price rise will in turn increase council tax. I know that the Government are not particularly shy about council tax increases—it has increased dramatically in my constituency—but investors calculating their investments in quarries will have a significant problem.

Elliot Morley: There will be an opportunity to go into that matter in detail later on, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Bill contains a presumption of renewal, and quarry operators will be able to work round the regulations. The Bill does not specify a particular period, and the Environment Agency will have discretion over the period to be applied. Of course, the measure does not extinguish licences currently held by quarries in perpetuity, but provides a power to withdraw them if there is environmental damage. I would expect that to be the exception rather than the norm, and, as one of a range of options, it will be the last resort. Quarries may well find that moving to time-limited licences is to their advantage, but we will discuss that later.

Paddy Tipping: The Minister will accept that the Environment Agency is already very involved with the quarrying industry and is a statutory consultee on any planning application. But is not the real issue long-term investment? Surely it is necessary for the agency to discuss matters with the industry. There is no difference over principle; everyone is signed up to the principles, but an open and transparent process is needed so that the industry can continue to make long-term investment decisions.

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend takes a sensible approach. A discussion of the issues facing quarry owners and the agency's concerns about sustainable management is in the interests of both parties. That opportunity is addressed here, but the amendment is technically flawed, so I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster will accept my explanation and seek to withdraw it.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Guildford for her speech, although I feel that the disappearance of water voles has more to do with the release of mink than with abstraction.

Sue Doughty: I would agree that some water voles have disappeared as a result of mink being released, but I lived in the Lambourn valley at the time and I can say that there were no mink dealing with those particular water voles.

Bill Wiggin: We are all a little the wiser.
 I wanted, through my amendment, to do precisely the opposite of what the Minister just suggested and link the regimes. The hon. Member for Sherwood suggested that it would be tremendous if the agency and the quarrying industry sat down together and worked things out. I think that they would be happy to 
 do that; it was a sensible and helpful suggestion. Unfortunately, they would then have to go and work things out with the planning authority. The trouble is that the net result would not necessarily be beneficial for either the quarriers or the end users—all of us every time we drive on a road—so we need to link the two systems. 
 The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury was tremendously helpful and showed the depth of his wisdom and experience in such matters as linking housing to sewerage and water. I was extremely grateful for that and for his previous speech, for which I neglected to thank him at the time. 
 Initially I felt prepared to withdraw the amendment, but now I do not. I shall be very clear about the reason: we want to link planning to the Environment Agency. When I found out that it was already a statutory consultee, I thought, ''Perfect, I can withdraw my amendment on that basis''; but I cannot do so because the Minister's argument is very much against linking the regimes, while I am very much in favour of that. I accept all the Minister's criticism of the amendment's wording, but I am not prepared to withdraw it because I want to see the principle changed and environmental policing linked with planning, and that is the amendment's purpose. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Restrictions on Impounding

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in
clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out 
 'which are not discrete waters'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 177, in 
clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out 
 'which are not discrete waters'.

Sue Doughty: I did not have the opportunity earlier, Mr. O'Brien, to welcome you to the Chair; I have pleasure in doing so now.
 We tabled the amendment to find out why discrete waters are not covered by the Bill. The Committee has expressed strong support for the environmental 
 aspects of the Bill, and we would expect it to include discrete waters. Section 221 of the Water Resources Act 1991 defines discrete waters as 
''inland waters so far as they comprise—
(a) a lake, pond or reservoir which does not discharge to any other inland waters; or
(b) one of a group of two or more lakes, ponds or reservoirs (whether near to or distant from each other) and of watercourses or mains connecting them, where none of the inland waters in the group discharges to any inland waters outside the group''.
 A number of other discrete waters come to mind, including navigation waters, navigation reservoirs and other substantial bodies of water with their own environmental systems, which are used for various purposes. It would be wrong to exclude them. 
 Ponds, lakes and reservoirs have important ecosystems, and other parts of the Bill look to protect those ecosystems. On the face of it, however, a substantial amount of water seems to be excluded from the Bill's provisions. Several discrete bodies of water are sites of special scientific interest, and I would like to know how they are to be protected. It might be decided to remove water from a discrete body of water—the idea is floated every now and then that we should have a national water grid or a similar mechanism—but I want to know how we would support the water levels in those reservoirs. Those levels will rise and fall, but removing too much water can cause environmental damage. It seems that the Bill does not provide the protection to those habitats that is afforded to the other areas of water that it covers. 
 I would like to know what the Government are going to do to protect those ecosystems, and I wonder why discrete waters are excluded. I would welcome the Minister's comments on how discrete waters are treated in the water framework directive and whether the directive might offer more protection. Certainly, the Bill offers them no protection. We would like the amendment to be accepted because it could form the basis of an efficient way to tackle the environmental problem of supporting such systems. What will the Government do to protect those habitats?

Elliot Morley: I understand the hon. Lady's point, which is reasonable. The amendments deal with discrete waters—lakes, ponds and reservoirs or groups of such waters, which do not discharge into other inland waters. The licensing system, whether for abstraction or impounding, does not apply to discrete waters. Our proposals for the Bill, on which we consulted in 2000, did not suggest a change to that position. The changes proposed in amendments Nos. 176 and 177 would control the impounding of discrete waters but not abstraction from them, so they would not preserve the ecology of those waters.
 In discrete waters, where impacts downstream cannot occur, impounding controls would be of little benefit in managing water resources. We recognise that we must consider discrete waters in fulfilling the requirements of the water framework directive, which does not necessarily exempt them from abstraction or pollution controls. Some discrete waters should perhaps be water bodies for that purpose. 
 As we have said in the other place, DEFRA and the Environment Agency are exploring how best to amend the definition of discrete waters to meet the objectives of the directive. I understand that the consultation has ended and the agency is considering the outcomes.

Norman Baker: Will the Minister give us a flavour of the process that the Government will use to determine which discrete waters harbour important species and how they should be protected? That may give us some confidence that the ecology of those waters will not be diminished.

Elliot Morley: On that latter point, certain species may be protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or by SSSI status. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly states, we must consider the characteristics of bodies of water. The agency is currently working examining those characteristics with a view to producing definitions, and it must finish its work by the end of 2004. The obligation will be included in the regulations to transpose the directive. There is still work to be done, but this point will be addressed.
 We must consider how discrete waters are treated under the regimes rather than simply imposing abstraction controls. The controls must be co-ordinated and planned in light of the needs of catchment areas. The amendments are intended to bring discrete waters fully into the licensing regime, but they would not achieve that as they would not bring discrete waters under abstraction control. They would take a different approach to abstraction controls from that taken in any other regime, and they would pre-empt the outcome of the consultation by DEFRA and the Environment Agency on how the directive should be implemented. 
 I understand the hon. Member for Guildford's point. It is being addressed by ongoing work on the directive, and those definitions and clarifications will emerge as part of that consultation.

Bill Wiggin: I am sorry to pop in at this juncture, but it is unclear whether the measures would affect ordinary people who build ponds or swimming pools in their garden. [Laughter.] Well, those are discrete waters. Would they be affected if there were a drought? If they then, for example, pumped out their swimming pool and it contained more than 20 cu m, would they require an abstraction licence?

Elliot Morley: They would not require an abstraction licence to pump out a swimming pool, unless it was the size of Lake Windermere—that might be a bit excessive. Perhaps some people could afford a swimming pool that size, but that is not generally a problem that we face.
 There are restrictions on the impounding of water, which make it an offence to begin, construct or alter impounding works unless a licence has been obtained. If someone starts to impound a stream, that will have consequences downstream and upstream.

Sue Doughty: I have listened to the explanations and thank the Minister for examining the subject and providing that information. I will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, but I support
 the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes that this is another example of a lack of joined-up government and clarity.
 The hon. Member for Leominster posed an additional helpful and important question about the scale of a discrete water, which demonstrates that some of that information should have been made available to the Committee and that, when we are considering such an important Bill, such information should be clearly understood. 
 We look forward with interest to the results of the consultation. However, these matters are very worrying for members of the Committee, who are trying to look after the relevant interests at this stage. We seem to be working with one arm behind our back as we discuss whether we are in or outside the European framework directive. Notwithstanding what the Minister said about there being two different activities, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Existing impounding works

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in
clause 5, page 4, line 22, at end insert 
 'unless the impounding works are contained in an area less than 50m x 20m x 3m'.
 I suspect that this also has to do with whether clause 5 stands part of the Bill. This is not a wrecking amendment. In the previous debate I intimated that I wanted the Minister to clarify the Bill's implications for the smaller user, impounder or pond builder and to recognise the significant differences between somebody who digs a hole in a field and watches it fill up with water during the winter and somebody who actively seeks to store water to spray on their crops during the summer. Nobody should have more red tape thrust on them. I am, however, worried that the Bill seeks to do that. On reading earlier legislation, I could not see enormous differences, so I should be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on the purpose of this change to section 25 of the Water Resources Act 1991. We shall need illumination when the details come out.

Diana Organ: The amendment gives measurements of 50 m by 20 m by 3 m. As we are talking about clarity, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify whether that is the size of his swimming pool?

Bill Wiggin: I like the easy ones. I have no swimming pool, and I do not think that I could afford one that size. I sought to draft an amendment that would refer to something the size of a swimming pool because we should be talking about significant amounts of water that will have some environmental impact. We require clarity on that.
 If the hon. Lady were to build a swimming pool, I should be grateful if she would let me swim in it.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the amendment to refer to a body of water the size of a swimming pool. Did he deliberately choose the size of an Olympic pool—because that is what his amendment describes?

Bill O'Brien: Order. We are not going to enter into the question of the provision or size of the swimming pool.

Bill Wiggin: I am distraught by that, Mr. O'Brien, because my constituents in Leominster are trying to build a swimming pool to replace the one that has just been closed.
 It is important that we find out exactly what dimensions the Minister requires, and I look forward to hearing his illuminating response.

Elliot Morley: I repeat the point that I made earlier: even a small impounding can have detrimental consequences downstream, so I cannot support a threshold for exemption. Any small works could have an impact and must be considered carefully, so those involved must apply to the Environment Agency for advice about the necessary licence.

Bill Wiggin: Is the Minister talking about the damming of a stream rather than the construction of a reservoir that fills only in the winter?

Elliot Morley: Yes, because impounding takes place where there is water flow. If a person digs a hole, that is somewhat different, unless they are affecting the water table.
 People might want to impound for ornamental purposes, and the Bill does not prevent them from doing so, but they must apply for a licence. We need to consider the potential effects on the ecology of even very small streams, which must be protected. The measure would not generally apply to swimming pools, which come under separate planning controls; in some cases, water authorities insist on compulsory metering for swimming pools. There are cases of swimming pools that are designed by impounding to have a flow through them. I saw a design for a swimming pond that cost £20,000—one could buy a house in certain parts of the country for that kind of money, so I am not so sure that that is a good use of resources. 
 Clause 5 provides the agency with a new power to serve notice to require that an impounding licence be obtained. Such licensing is generally for impounding works that never had a licence, because they happened before the current legislation took effect, but may now be causing a problem. Failure to comply with such a notice will be an offence. Clause 6 provides the agency with the power to serve a works notice.

Robert Key: Can the Minister tell us how much one of those licences will cost?

Elliot Morley: Not just at the moment, but I am sure that I can provide that information for the hon. Gentleman.

Bill Wiggin: An obscure example has sprung to mind. Will the few people who live in castles with moats need a licence? We need to consider all the
 implications for ancient monuments. Am I right in saying that anyone who has impounded any sort of water in the past will now have to buy a licence without knowing what the price will be?

Elliot Morley: The licence will cost about £100. As far as ancient monuments are concerned, I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that some ancient earthworks that impound water for defence purposes come under the Reservoirs Act 1975. We have to ensure that earthworks are maintained because of the risks that they pose to people. In some cases, regulations on impounding are needed.

Bill Wiggin: I am slightly bemused by this exchange. The implication of my amendment was that anything smaller than an Olympic-sized swimming pool should be exempt. I accept the Minister's argument that if one dams a stream, there are consequences downstream. However, there is a difference between people who save water, say for farmland use, and those who do damage by damming streams. We have all been to the countryside and seen people who have dammed streams while children have been playing—

Elliot Morley: Not with a cement mixer, they haven't.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister is right. They have not dammed streams with the intention of causing long-term environmental damage.

Kevin Brennan: Would not a more topical and appropriate example than castle moats be the American fashion of impounding water for golf courses? That has caused a lot of damage and created ponds and pools smaller than Olympic-sized swimming pools. The amendment would allow that to continue.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for that intervention. We are considering how the clause will make a difference. If the hon. Gentleman is right to say that golf courses are causing damage, I do not have a problem with his point. However, I have had difficulty in getting a feeling for size. My probing amendment was designed to tease out from the Minister the volume of water that we are talking about.
Several hon. Members rose—

Bill Wiggin: Lots of hon. Members want to intervene. I shall start with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury.Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend know whether slurry pits on farms will need a licence? If not, perhaps he could ask the Minister.

Bill Wiggin: I cannot think of a better time for the Minister to take an intervention.

Elliot Morley: I can assure the hon. Member for Salisbury that slurry pits will not require a licence under the Bill.
 I also wanted to give some clarification on the powers to require a licence for impounding. The agency will not necessarily seek a licence for every impounding works. The power will be discretionary, and it is intended to deal only with problem sites. The agency will not require applications for all unlicensed works, as no benefit would be had from that; it will do so only where there is a problem.

Bill Wiggin: I am extremely grateful to the Minister.

Siôn Simon: Is not the hon. Gentleman missing a trick as regards the golf course element? He has been such a valiant spokesman for ordinary people with swimming pools and those who live in castles with moats, but what about ordinary people with golf courses?

Bill Wiggin: That is amusing, but it is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman said that, because all the factors that I mentioned are important in the abstraction and retention of water. I was probing the Government for the answers that, funnily enough, I have just had from the Minister. I suspect that more people play golf than swim—

Candy Atherton: Maybe in the Tory party.

Bill Wiggin: It is certainly true in my constituency, because the swimming pool has just shut.

Andy King: You should have used it more often.

Bill Wiggin: It was shut for health and safety reasons.
 The important thing is that we are, at least, teasing out what the Government mean. Whether we are talking about a golf course or any other scenario, what we seek from the Government is the assurance that people who are not causing environmental damage but are storing water will not be penalised, and that people who are storing water, for whatever reason, are doing so in such a small way that their actions are highly unlikely to have an environmental impact. I have had an assurance from the Minister that the Environment Agency will show discretion and that it will not require licences from such people.

Norman Baker: Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten me on whether, if the Environment Agency invites a person to apply for a licence and that person chooses to appeal, he or she is entitled to continue impounding while the appeal is heard? It would be useful to get that on record.

Bill Wiggin: That is an extremely useful request. My understanding of the Bill is that the clause applies to existing, not potential, impounding works, so I think that the person must have already done some impounding to have caught the agency's attention. However, I am happy to stand corrected by the Minister if that is not the case.
Mr. Morley indicated assent.

Bill Wiggin: In that case, I think that we have exhausted all the questions apart from that of the hon. Member for Lewes, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Existing impounding works: works notices

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in
clause 6, page 6, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in
clause 6, page 6, line 15, at end insert 
 'within a specified time limit'.

Bill Wiggin: I know that we do not have a great deal of time left. I am again probing the Government. I ask them to leave out subsection (2) because, again, it does not seem to make a great difference to existing legislation. One of the difficulties with the Bill is that a lot of it amends existing legislation, and a lot of it is about fine detail. That makes it quite a difficult Bill for people to follow. When I was going through it, I tried as best I could to see why the Government were amending legislation, because in some cases the
 amendments were very small. The purpose of amendment No. 7 is to find that out, although it is coupled with amendment No. 8.
 I shall pause here, because others may wish to speak, and because I am not absolutely sure which part of the clause I want explained. [Laughter.] I will keep going.

Bill O'Brien: Order.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.